Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!

Top Page
This message is part of the following thread:
Mthe complete thread tree sorted by date
M++\Jared Ross at <-
MMMMShadowAce at ->
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
+ (text/html)
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: ShadowAce
Date:  
To: listserv
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
:-)

No problems Jared..

I feel your pain, really I do.. :-)

On 2/11/07, Jared Ross <> wrote:
>
> Clearly I've missed the mark on this one and then had the audacity to
> argue with the king of statistics, Mr. DSW himself. Either way, apparently
> this wasn't the direction that ShadowAce was referring to. I'll save my
> comments for future discussions. I sometimes wonder how we can have such
> ridiculously different opinions, and then I remember that we have
> politicians that can't even agree. I wonder if anyone has ever been arrested
> while finding a rural cache???
>
> Jared
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: noshdoo tsoh <>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:33:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
> *"Trust me, just because there are more micros than rural caches, doesn't
> mean they're more POPULAR."*
>
>
>
> It's not the number of caches that makes them popular, but the number of
> finds on each cache. The fact that they are found at a rate exponentially
> higher than other caches does indicate popularity. Or am I missing the
> definition of 'popular'? Back it up with numbers? ;-)
>
> * *
>
> *"We're trying to encourage good micros and urban caches and discourage
> the placement of bad ones."*
>
>
>
> A noble cause, indeed. Can I see you're scientific study on what is good
> and what is bad? You are the decider? Oh, that's right, *trust you*.
>
>
>
> Back to you're regularly scheduled rant…
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [mailto:
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jared Ross
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:42 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
>
>
> Yeah, I knew that remark was coming. Trust me, just because there are more
> micros than rural caches, doesn't mean they're more POPULAR. You conduct a
> scientific study and then I'll believe that claim. Furthermore I do not
> believe mine (nor AZcachemeister or ShadowAce's) comments were suggesting
> that we discourage micros, just crappy ones. :) Honestly, there are hundreds
> of great micros and urban hides out there. At the same time, there are
> hundreds of horrible micros (apparently they're popular). We're trying to
> encourage good micros and urban caches and discourage the placement of bad
> ones.
>
> As I mentioned we do our best to determine whether a cache is one that we
> will enjoy or not before going after it, but this doesn't always work. Maybe
> if I "complain" about it then the next guy with my tastes will know better.
>
> Cache and let cache, and let me complain about crappy caches. ;)
>
> Jared
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: noshdoo tsoh < >
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:57:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
> To no one in particular, and to whomever it applies:
>
>
>
> Urban micros are a lot more popular than rural/desert/mountain caches.
> Just because you personally don't like urban micro caches doesn't mean there
> needs to be some sort of organized effort to discourage them. A lot of
> people are visiting and enjoying these types of caches. Really, how hard can
> it be to go after only the type of caches you enjoy, instead of going after
> all of them, and then complaining about it later? You'll find duds no matter
> what type of cache you go after. And of course, the whole thing's just a
> game. Sounds like a few cachers may need a vacation from caching itself.
>
>
>
> Your trash cache is another's treasure cache.
>
>
>
> Simple idea: Cache and let cache.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [mailto:
> ] *On Behalf Of *Regan
> Smith
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:15 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
>
>
> I have a borrowed idea (360) don't log it do you really need the find???
> Regardless of what alphabet log you use a find on a cache validates it.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [mailto:
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jared Ross
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:31 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
>
>
> WARNING: This is a regular sized email. If you're only a fan of micro
> emails then ignore this email immediately.
>
> I really agree with AZcachemeister and ShadowAce. At the same time
> ShadowAce's comments have made me realize that I'm not doing much to help
> the matter. I'm not very confrontational and I don't like to be very mean
> and while I encourage someone with larger cohanes to log exactly how they
> feel, I'm not really willing to do that. I have however decided to change my
> logging standards. We've become a little more picky when it comes to caches
> that we hunt. I'm not saying that we've sworn off micros or urban hides as
> there are some out there that are nice. Basically if I'm planning a cache
> outing I'll read over the cache description and if it seems suspect I might
> skim through a few log entries. If it sounds like its behind a Home Depot
> trash compactor then I'm going to take it off our list. Even with a
> screening process we still end up doing caches that we would rather not have
> done. Sure we could have ignored the cache, IF we would have known what we
> were getting into. Admit it, once you're out of the car and searching, you
> want to find it.
>
> Yesterday I grabbed four urban caches. I also drove past about 2 or 3
> others but never even stopped because of the locations. Of those 4, I logged
> as follows:
>
> Cache #1 - It was a tricky cache container in a relatively pointless
> location but it belongs to a series and overall it wasn't that bad. My log
> entry noted the creativity of the cache and thanked the owner.
>
> Cache #2 - A LPC cache located close to a main road and across from an
> office building. Luckily I could block the traffic with my truck but the
> container was too big and made the lamp skirt stick up on one side, making
> it that much more obvious. My log entry said almost nothing, "yup, right
> where it should have been" and instead of signing off the way I always do
> "Thanks, Jared" I wrote "TN/LN, Jared". It's subtle, I know.
>
> Cache #3 - A good cache with a significant location. The container was
> nothing special and the technique was typical, but the location wasn't. My
> log entry was long, very detailed (without spoilers) and included a Thank
> You at the end.
>
> Cache #4 - A creative, homemade container in a vagabonds paradise. There
> were blankets and other things very nearby that indicate homeless people are
> usually here. My log briefly mentioned the cache container being unique and
> then I described the homeless persons new "shelter" nearby. I did not thank
> the cache owners.
>
> This morning I found another urban cache that while not in an especially
> interesting spot, it was a well planned hide and well stocked, large, cache.
> I also left a very long detailed log entry for this cache expressing my
> enjoyment of finding it.
>
> AZcachemeister is right that we need to find a way to increase the quality
> of urban caches. Urban hides have a place in geocaching and allow for many
> people to enjoy the game that might not be able to find the rural hides.
> Helping each other make better decisions about what caches to go after is
> one thing that we can do to help. While my way isn't blunt and to the point,
> I'm trying to praise good caches by leaving detailed log entries and ignore
> bad caches by not giving them the praise they DON'T deserve.
>
> Another, more obvious way of making a difference is by hiding our own
> caches. I'm not very good at this and often struggle to justify my cache
> placements because I either think they aren't creative enough or I question
> whether or not the location is good enough. From what I've seen lately
> though I would rather find an altoids container in a park than find a well
> disguised cache behind Wal-Mart.
>
> Quickly, in regards to the concern about having your log entry deleted if
> you leave negative feedback. You have a couple options.
> 1. You could keep logging the same message back to the cache every time it
> is deleted making a note that it was deleted. If anyone is watching the
> cache they'll become aware of the situation and maybe that will affect their
> next cache placement.
> 2. You could log a seemingly innocent log entry and then a day or two
> later edit that log entry and add back the comments in your original log
> that was deleted. Owners aren't notified when a log entry is edited.
> 3. While this one is controversial some people do it. If your log entry is
> repeatedly deleted then log a find on your own cache and specify that it is
> a log entry for GCxxxxx and the reason you can't log it there followed by
> your original log entry.
>
> Anyone else have any ideas or comments on how we can improve the caches in
> our state? Maybe we need a special acronym. Instead of TFTC we could have
> DWYT (Don't Waste Your Time). Of course we could always start using this
> website to generate log entries for us:
> http://loungingatwalden.googlepages.com/RandomLog.html
> My favorite generated log entry: "This cache was ill-conceived and
> ill-received. You should turn your GPS over to the nearest authorities! TNLN
> and almost didn't bother signing the log!!"
>
> Jared of AZBliss02
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: AZcachemeister <>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:17:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
> Well, I don't like to insult people by saying their cache is crap, but
> aren't they insulting us by bringing us to those areas?
> There is nothing of interest at the back of the 99¢ store, nor anything
> clever about a shoe-polish can stuffed in a crack in the building.
> If we don't start taking some responsibility for our activities, someone
> else will.
> If enough people start 'telling it like it is' then the cachers hiding
> those type of caches just might get the hint.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Regan Smith wrote:
>
> Tftc
>
>
>
> Tnlnsl
>
>
>
> Honesty will get your log deleted…
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [
> mailto:az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com<>]
> *On Behalf Of *ShadowAce
> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2007 6:15 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
>
>
> Scott,
>
> With all due respect. Oct 25, 2005 4:02 PM you sent email about how
> Micros were evil and now that you had finally reached the top find counter
> in the state you were not going to be going for micros any longer. How only
> Urban caches had any reason to exist and people should help stop the spread
> of micro spew.
>
> Yet a very large percent of your cache finds are micros even after the
> posts about how Micros should go away. 1114 terrain 1 and 735 difficulty 1
> according to the stats you placed on your profile. While I am sick of lamp
> poles and guard rails myself, I merely pointed that story out because of how
> many people caching in Arizona tell me at almost every single event
> 'Permission is not required' or 'Its public property'.
>
> If cachers want to place a micro every 600 feet they will. If they throw
> caches out with no intention of ever maintaining them, they will. Why?
> Because every other cacher is writing 'Great cache, thanks for the hide' and
> not writing....
>
> *I was able to grab this cache quickly though I had to shield the location
> with my rear side from the dumpster divers.* or *After sifting through the
> garbage left by the homeless in the area, we found your cache. *
>
> *Never would have known about this place, because we generally avoid
> dumpsters.
>
> * I have been trying to be very honest in my logs about areas such as
> these and instead of getting 'Hay thanks for warning me that place was going
> to be so terrible', I receive emails saying 'Why are you such an ass? If you
> dont like the cache, dont go find it!'
>
> Welp the problem with this is from the writeups you have no idea if it
> will be a real interesting place such as the one we found last night called
> Hope, or in a pile of trash until you get to the location.
>
> So instead of complaining about the TYPE of cache, I was merely pointing
> out that Permission should be obtained on ALL cache hides. Heck I spent 2
> years getting permission for one place. 4 weeks to get permission for
> another cache. 5 weeks of emails to get permission for one location and then
> other people just throw more caches in the area when they came.. Yep I
> caught hell from the person that granted me permission to place mine after
> that.. Joy joy...
>
> If people hate micros so much, why do they continue to grab them and
> write 'Thanks for the fun'?
>
>
>
> On 2/9/07, *Roping The Wind* <> wrote:
>
>
> The geocacher who placed the altoid tin says he "wished others had told
> him
> this was not a good place to put a cache". I can only laugh at that
> statement. The gc.com site clearly states that you must get permission to
> place a cache on private property!!! Did he not read that little tidbit of
> information? Typical of alot of urban cache hides. Is he now trying to put
> it onto the geocaching community as a whole? Making the whole
> game/community
> look bad?
>
> I do agree though that law enforcement over reacted... kinda like the
> little
> Boston cartoon 'bomb' scare thing.
>
> The other thing that comes to my mind is that he is relatively new to the
> game and this is most of what he has seen so far... a bunch of altoid tins
> behind stores and on electrical boxes and the like. So, he might have
> thought it was totally ok to hide a cache like this... even though, as I
> mentioned before, he should have gotten permission to place it in the
> first
> place.
>
> I do like this quote though: "I've discovered that I really don't like
> urban
> caching. I'd rather do it in the woods. That's where it's really fun," he
> said.
>
> As of the past month and a half now, I have not found an urban cache hide.
> I
> dont mind going a week without finding a cache anymore. But I have decided
> that I only want to do rural area caches. Caches that require a hike to
> get
> to or maybe a nice 4x4 drive or maybe just a drive by cache placed in a
> beautiful location way outside the city limit signs. Or maybe caches
> placed
> in small towns is ok too. Basically, caches placed with the location in
> mind. I have been using the DGP geocaching site lately to pick and choose
> caches to find.
>
> The past month or so, I have found a much greater enjoyement for the game
> again. It feels like the old days of caching 4 or 5 years ago when I first
>
> began. I can't say I will never find an urban cache again. But I am
> carefully picking and choosing which ones I want to find.
>
> Scott
> Team Ropingthewind
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona 's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
>
>
>
>
>
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arizona 's Geocaching Resource
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona 's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars<http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw-->at Yahoo!
> Autos.<http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw-->
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona 's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43910/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/mail%0a>
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile . Get started.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43910/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/mail%0a>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating"<http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/;_ylc=X3oDMTE4MGw4Z2hlBF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDZ3JlZW5jZW50ZXI->at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
This message was posted to the following mailing lists:
AzGeocaching.com
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages		<-Re: [Az-Geocaching] Check this video out: "Bikini Thief"Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!->
AzGeocaching administrated by AdminLurker (version 2.3)